MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION Sixty-eighth Session March 22, 1995 The Committee on Education was called to order at 3:30 p.m., on Wednesday, March 22, 1995, Chairman William Z. Harrington presiding in Room 330 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. William Z. (Bill) Harrington, Chairman Mr. Wendell P. Williams, Chairman Mrs. Gene Wines Segerblom, Vice Chairman Mrs. Patricia A. Tripple, Vice Chairman Mr. Thomas Batten Mr. Max Bennett Mrs. Deanna Braunlin Mrs. Vonne Chowning Mrs. Marcia de Braga Mr. Mark Manendo Mr. P.M. Roy Neighbors Mrs. Jeannine Stroth COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT: None GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Ms. Chris Giunchigliani Mr. David Goldwater Mr. Douglas Bache STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: H. Pepper Sturm, Chief Principal Research Analyst OTHERS PRESENT: Dick Cervi, Silver Springs Christian Academy Mary Foster Havercamp, The Cambridge School Francis Gillings, Nevada for Quality Education Barbara Clark, Nevada PTA Douglas Byington, Nevada Association of School Administrators Charlotte Brothwell, Nevada Classified School Employees Association Ken Hopkins Rick Millsap, Nevada State Employees Association Ray Bacon, Nevada Manufacturer's Association Shirley McDaniel, Washoe County Teacher's Association Don Forrester, Douglas County School District Randy Wallstrum, Douglas County School District Stephen Gustafson, Mineral County School District Pendry A. Clark, Douglas County School District Diane McCoy, Douglas County School District Cherie Johnson, Douglas County School District Karen Scott, Carson City School District Analee Anderson, Carson City School District Scott Dickinson, Nevada Association of Independent Business Larry T. Black, Capital Christian Elementary School Malcolm Lepas, Educare Schools, Inc. Kristine Jensen, Nevada Concerned Citizens Linda Hayes, Nevada Concerned Citizens Vickie Peterson, Nevada Concerned Citizens Carrie Benson, Nevada Concerned Citizens Lucille Lusk, Nevada Concerned Citizens Greg Betts, Rural School Districts Brendan Trainor, Washoe County Libertarian Party Henry Etchemendy, Nevada Association of School Boards Dave Cook, Nevada State Parent Teacher's Association Dede Goodnight, Nevada Association of School Boards Rosemary Smith, Republican Women and Bethlehem Lutheran School Marilyn Fendelander, Washoe County School Board Marta Magistrali, Storey County School Board Dan Fox, Pershing County School District Lezlie Porter, Alliance Looking at Education Reform Today Sharron Angle, Nye County School Board Janine Hansen, Nevada Eagle Forum Ellie West, Carson City School District M. K. (Ike) Yochum, Independent American Party Carol Cronenberger Donna Works, Carson City School District Marvin L. Laurente, Bethlehem Lutheran School Rick DeMar, Carson City School Board Trustee Dave Hampton, Carson City School District. Peggy Lear Bowen, Nevada State Education Association Bobbie Gang, Nevada Women's League, American Association of University Women Konnie Susich, Douglas County Professional Education Association, Nevada State Education Association Joan LeSage, Educare School Jeff Haliczer Bill Clark, Douglas County Professional Education Association, Nevada State Education Association Linda Scribner, Nevada State Education Association Lynn Warne, Washoe County Teacher's Association Jack Burr, Washoe County Teacher's Association Martha Framsted, Douglas County Teachers Lois Bianchi, Washoe County School District Barbara Johnson, Lyon County School Board Gregory MCN. French, Eureka County School Board Catherine Teresa Pollock Roger Warren Chairman Harrington announced information had been received pertaining to gun possession on school campuses. Information had been requested regarding expulsions and suspensions for gun possession. In 1994 the following expulsions for gun possession were made: Clark County, 38, Douglas County, 3, Lyon County, 3, Storey County, 1, and Washoe County, 1, for a total of 46. Copies will be distributed to committee members. Information has been received regarding A.B. 290 and A.B. 291 from Assemblyman Sandra Tiffany, which will be distributed to committee members. Information has been received on A.B. 283 dealing with the recruitment of teachers. Clark County School District supplied information concerning the ratio of minority teachers to students. The information will be distributed to committee members. Chairman Harrington announced the hearing on A.B. 340 scheduled for Wednesday, March 29, 1995, in Las Vegas, will not be held. It will be rescheduled for a subsequent Friday or Saturday. Chairman Harrington announced the hearing on A.B. 340 would be terminated at 5:30 p.m. due to prior commitments of committee members. Multiple hearings will be heard on A.B. 340 to accommodate interested parties. The gavel was turned over to Vice Chairman Tripple as A.B. 340 was sponsored by Chairman Harrington. The hearing was opened on Assembly Bill 340. ASSEMBLY BILL 340 - Authorizes certain private schools to obtain payments from county school districts for educating certain pupils. Chairman William Z. Harrington, M.D. introduced A.B. 340, dealing with school choice. In an introductory statement Dr. Harrington stated the bill allows freedom; the freedom for parents to choose the appropriate education for their children. The course of freedom throughout history was discussed. Dr. Harrington went through the bill in explanation beginning with Section 1. Section 1 was described as a preamble explaining the benefits of the bill for the children of Nevada. On Lines 8, 9, and 10 of Page 1 the bill's intent was explained, that being to provide parents and pupils, regardless of their income levels, an equal opportunity to choose the education best meeting their individual needs and wishes. In Section 3, Dr. Harrington discussed applicability of pupils and private schools. For pupil eligibility, the family income level must be $100,000 or less, and the student has to be eligible to attend schools in Nevada school districts. In explaining the $100,000 cap, Dr. Harrington stated he wished to allow all the poor and all the middle classes to have access to the program, with the wealthy being excluded. Private school eligibility includes a minimum of twenty-five students enrolled, varied grade levels, acceptance of school district funds as full payment for tuition, non-discriminatory, in state, adherence to basic school board curriculum, and non-sectarian. Referring to Page 3, Section 4, Line 19, Dr. Harrington explained all schools must be in compliance with all laws of the state of Nevada and the United States. The schools must be certified by the State Department of Education. Dr. Harrington explained the bill was crafted to have no immediate fiscal impact. As the program grows, the public schools will get an increase in their per capita amounts as well as supporting private schools. Referring to Page 3, Lines 23-26, Dr. Harrington explained an application fee will be charged by the State Department of Education when private schools apply for certification to assist in administrative processing costs. In Section 5, verification of certification is required by the State Board of Education before a private school may apply to local school district boards for reimbursement. Section 6 explains the payment system. When an eligible student enrolls in an eligible private school, the school will go to its local school district and apply for the allotted funds. The allotted funds will be based on the per capita expenditures of the school district from the previous year. The private schools will be operating one year behind public school expenditures. A handicapped student will be reimbursed at 100% of what would have been spent in the public school system. An "at risk" student, defined in the bill as failing or a year behind grade level, measured on national standard tests, would receive 95% of what would have been spent in the public school system. A student who falls in neither of the above categories, would be funded at 90% of school district expenditure. For every student leaving the public system to private school, the public school system will save ten percent of its cost. The private schools would be eligible for reimbursement quarterly as are the public schools. Within thirty days of public school receipt of state monies, appropriate funds would be sent to the private schools by the public schools. On Page 4, Line 28, at-risk pupils are defined. Section 7 explains the information private schools are required to make public to parents and the State Department of Education. The parents are given the information needed to make an informed decision concerning the appropriateness of the private school for their child. Page 5, Line 10 discusses non-discrimination, and the requirement of private schools to accept allotted stated monies as full payment. Section 8 discusses the liberties and restrictions allowed private schools. They will be required to fulfil N.R.S. Subsection 1 394.130, which are the curriculum guidelines set by the State Board of Education. Section 9 allows private schools to receive public funds. Section 10 explains the benefit to public schools. When a student leaves the public school system to go to a private school and is supported by the public school district, the school district continues to count the student for apportionment purposes. Therefore, state and local tax base monies are not changed. The district has less students to educate and will only spend 90% of what they would have spent on the students. The remaining ten percent is a savings useable on other public school students. Section 12 of A.B. 340 explains students currently enrolled in private schools would be ineligible the first two years of the program. On Page 4, Lines 24-25, it was noted local school districts are allowed to withhold one percent of payments made to private schools to cover their administrative costs. The other big savings to public school districts is when enough students go to private schools the public school system does not have to provide schools for those students. Various scenarios involving this concept were addressed. Dr. Harrington disclosed last year the Clark County School District spent $4,593 per pupil. Saving ten percent equals $459 per student. If 10,000 students went to private schools there would be $4,590,000 per year left within the school system to spend on remaining students. Per capita expenditures would increase within the public system. Dr. Harrington views this as a win-win situation for all involved. The choice school concept was put forth in the Milwaukee, Wisconsin, system initiated by a one time welfare mother in the inner city who desired choice for her children. Dr. Harrington referred the committee to a handout distributed for their further information, "A.B. 340, School Choice Bill Exhibits" (Exhibit C). Assemblyman Batten commended Dr. Harrington for the time, effort and work expended on this issue. Mr. Batten questioned the topic of transportation and the fiscal ramifications for individual counties. Dr. Harrington stated once demand was created, a market will rise to meet it. He believes the bill will foster small, private, local schools throughout the area so busing will not be required. Mr. Batten asked again about transportation issues and if arrangements had been considered in the event local schools do not become available. Dr. Harrington stated if private schools wished to provide transportation, they would have to do so out of the funding. Mr. Batten asked how the poor would be helped. Dr. Harrington reiterated his belief local schools would be created with a student population of 100-150 students. He noted the bill is in no way an attempt to get people to leave their neighborhoods or be bused elsewhere. It is an attempt to create a demand within local neighborhoods so the demand can come to them. Assemblyman Bennett stated his support for choice and privatization. He asked if disabled students cost more per capita to educate than non disabled students. If the answer is yes, can private schools afford to accept disabled students as full cost reimbursements. Dr. Harrington referred to Page 3, Lines 40-43 of A.B. 340. The amount of per capita money referred to means the per capita amount allotted for the disabled student and not for the per capita student population as a whole. It will be more money than the non disabled student per capita cost. Assemblyman Manendo noted he has six elementary schools in his district which are in need of repair. He expressed concern about building safety and standards in regard to the establishment of small private schools. Concern was also expressed for a few teachers creating and teaching grades K-12 in small private schools. Dr. Harrington stated the schools would have to meet all building, safety, and fire codes as required by Nevada State law. Mr. Manendo asked if students will have to meet specific entrance standards in the private schools. Dr. Harrington noted he felt schools would rise to meet a variety of student needs. Such schools exist currently; the New Horizons school catering to at-risk students being an example. Schools will be created to cater to a specific part of the market such as specialization in handicapped and disabled students, at-risk students, college preparatory students, and work oriented student programs having possible affiliation with local manufacturers as vocational prep schools. The schools would be free to have their own admission criteria looking for students who would best benefit from their school. Mr. Manendo inquired about the number of at risk schools, noting the transportation issue is important. Dr. Harrington stated a market would be created and the consumers would control the market. The innovation of the people would modify the market. This does not involve central planning but market planning where the consumers get their needs met once the demand is created and empowered. Mr. Manendo commended Dr. Harrington for his efforts on A.B. 340. Vice Co-Chairman Tripple declared the committee would question Dr. Harrington at a later time. Testimony was begun from audience members who were allotted three minutes each to speak. Audience members were called to the witness table in groups of two, with testimony being heard alternatively, for and against. Ms. Mary Havercamp, Director, The Cambridge Montessori School, Reno, Nevada, spoke in favor of A.B. 340. She supported the bill foundationally for three reasons. Parents or legal guardians should have the choice to select either a private or public school which may be more responsive to their child's needs. Parents may become more involved in educational decisions affecting their children if a more open educational market is available. Ms. Havercamp felt the bill needs work in the following ways: 1. The idea of promoting the creation of schools for the "disabled, at-risk, and dropouts" is not good. Integration is important, with learning occurring from each of us to the other. School should parallel life. 2. Minimum state regulations should be the same for public and private schools. 3. Family income should not be a variable in deciding who goes to private school. 4. The criteria need to be changed for at risk students and reimbursements. Every child is important. The standard of a child being behind one year is not a good one. Children can fail a class based on attendance and be deemed at risk. Certified teachers need to be in every classroom, whether public or private school. Mr. Dick Cervi, Silver Springs Christian Academy, applauded Chairman Harrington for the creation of A.B. 340, which he referred to as "an act of freedom". Mr. Cervi runs a small private school and agrees if vouchers are allowed small schools will develop in local areas. He stated at his school anyone is welcome to come and parents are responsible for their child's transportation. This initiates more parental involvement as many parents stay to help at school. A great need exists for alternative education. Mr. Cervi discussed several of the students at Silver Springs Christian Academy and the format of individualized education they receive. He stressed the need for choice and alternative education by some families. Vice Chairman Tripple explained to the audience the sign in sheets were part of the official record of the minutes of the meeting. A hand vote was taken of the audience for and against A.B. 340. In an "eyeball" count by the committee secretary, more audience members appeared to be against. Ms. Barbara Clark, Nevada Parent Teacher's Association (PTA), spoke representing 30,000 members in Nevada, in 40% to 45% of schools in Nevada. Explaining the memberships at school sites are polled for input on resolutions, Ms. Clark expressed the belief of public funds for public schools. Areas of concern expressed include the private school's right to turn away students, the setting of admission criteria, setting of class size, discrimination issues involving special education, English as a Second Language (ESL), and at-risk students, funding for special education students at state funding levels or with district funding included, transportation costs included in per pupil funding, the creation of a class system, accountability and certification costs, and equal standards for public and private schools regarding the American Disabilities Act. PTA opposes funding of any schools which have the right to turn away students. Mr. Douglas Byington, Nevada Association of School Administrators, asked the committee to "make the playing field level" if choice schooling is initiated. Evaluation of private school programs throughout the United States have not indicated success. Three independent evaluations of the Minnesota system do not agree it has done anything to improve education and show a stratification of the students. Comparison of public and private education is difficult. Public education is encumbered by laws. Putting the same laws and encumbrances on private schools would bring fairness to the comparison. A Senate bill involving charter schools is being considered currently. Mr. Francis Gillings, Nevadans for Quality Education, Sparks, Nevada, spoke of his likes and dislikes of A.B. 340. He stated building safety and standards are the last things anyone has to worry about. Mr. Gillings described his personal experiences with private schools and the successes found there. From an employer's point of view, Mr. Gillings believed 100% of public schools are dysfunctional. Mr. Ken Hopkins spoke representing himself as a citizen and a parent. Mr. Hopkins described the private school attended by his child. The tuition charged by the school is approximately $2500-$3000 per year. The amount of money received from public schools would be a windfall for private schools. Mr. Hopkins felt transportation problems could be easily solved. Seeing the bill as an answer to rising taxation, Mr. Hopkins urged the attempt of new things due to dropping SAT test scores. He suggested trying it for a period of eight to ten years with the philosophy of the state not knowing if it will work unless it is tried. Mr. Rick Millsap, President, Nevada State Education Association (NSEA) spoke from prepared remarks (Exhibit D). Mr. Millsap defended the public education system and decried the idea public schools are failing. Noting Nevada high school graduates have increased by 4.3%, Mr. Millsap explained the national average has declined by 10.3%. Nevada requires 22.5 units for students to graduate which ranks the state in the top five states in the nation in graduation standards. High school seniors in twelve of fifteen school districts in Nevada are passing reading and math sections of proficiency tests at greater than 95% according to the latest Nevada School Accountability Report. All fifteen districts reported writing scores greater than 96%. SAT and ACT scores have consistently exceeded the national average over the last decade. Mr. Millsap discussed the establishment of site- based education in Nevada schools as well as the accountability procedures used by the state, national accreditation and innovations. Mr. Millsap urged the committee to vote against A.B. 340. Ms. Elaine Lancaster, President, Washoe County Teacher's Association, spoke in opposition to A.B. 340 from prepared remarks (Exhibit E). She noted the uniqueness of public schools is due to the sense of community and encouraged looking for ways to get communities working together for the good of the whole with public schools used as the vehicle. Community involvement in problem solving will bring innovation and benefit society as schools are a reflection of the society in which they function. She quoted James A. Garfield in expressing her views on the importance in public education. She urged the committee to vote no on A.B. 340. Mr. Ken Lange, Executive Director, Nevada State Education Association, spoke against A.B. 340 from prepared remarks (Exhibit F). Mr. Lange noted NSEA's support of school reform and public assess as well as parental involvement in their children's education. Noting A.B. 340 will not change the basic social problems assaulting public education, Mr. Lange expressed concern the marketplace idea of education would not replace the nurturing missed in present society. Mr. Lange stated referendums on voucher plans have failed in sixteen states. He urged the committee vote no on A.B. 340. Mr. Ray Bacon, Executive Director, Nevada Manufacturer's Association, spoke in support of A.B. 340 from prepared remarks (Exhibit G). He noted there may be details requiring modification. The job growth in the manufacturing sector in Nevada is 13% annually. In northern Nevada job growth is 17%. Employers are unable to find qualified workers. The problem encountered by employers is the lack of fundamental, basic reading and math skills. Mr. Bacon felt public education needs market pressures, whether choice or charter schools, or both to improve itself. He insisted being clearly in favor of saving the public school system. Mr. Scott Dickinson, Nevada Association of Independent Business (NAIB), spoke in favor of A.B. 340. He explained NAIB is a coalition of over 700 small businesses across Nevada who have difficulty finding employees with basic literacy skills to hire. Referring to Section 1, Part 4 of A.B. 340, Mr. Dickinson discussed the issue of free market competition and the creation of more efficient public and private schools to produce high school graduates who are better prepared for success. Stating what is happening now is not working, Mr. Dickinson reiterated the difficulties he and members of his association has in hiring well prepared employees. Mr. Don Forrester, President, Douglas County School Board, stated he and the members of the Douglas County School Board have a basic philosophical difference of opinion to the bill. They cannot see the funneling off of money from public schools to unregulated private schools will in anyway improve the public school system or the education of the students in Nevada. He sees no increase in efficiency, no improvement in teacher morale, no financial rewards for teachers, or no improvement in teacher motivation. What is seen is small elitist schools popping up statewide having a hand picked, narrow segment of the population going to the schools with a narrow curriculum. The schools will not take all comers as public schools are required to do. Noting a recent tumultuous election of school board members in Douglas County where the private vs. public school issue was often raised, Mr. Forrester stated a vast majority of the voters of Douglas County were against vouchers in any way. He wished to go on record his belief the bill was a cop out in solving the problems of public education; asserting his belief that pulling money from public education and giving to private schools is not going to solve the problems of public education. He encouraged the demand of increased excellence, increased accountability, new innovation in education, and higher standards and requested no money be removed from public education. Ms. Charlotte Brothwell, Executive Director, Nevada Classified School Employees Association (NCSEA) spoke from prepared remarks (Exhibit H). She voiced the opinion parents have choice and control now--the choice and control being whether or not to be involved in their child's education. Concern was expressed about tax money accountability, savings for taxpayers through less new school construction, the statements regarding unnecessary and burdensome state regulation, standards, increased record keeping and business functions of public schools, licensing standards and exclusion possibilities. Ms. Brothwell expressed the unanimous opposition to A.B. 340 by the NCSEA Board of Directors and added her own personal opposition as well. Ms. Lezlie Porter, Alliance Looking at Education Reform Today (ALERT), spoke in support of the concept of the bill. Speaking on the concept of vouchers, Ms. Porter described them as little more than a variation on the GI bill for children. The United States is the only western nation not providing state aid to religious and private schools denying parents, especially poor families, the opportunity to select the best school for their children. She recommended putting aside fears engendered by the teacher's union for the sake of the children. Statistics were given regarding private school funding in other countries. Noting as many as eighteen states and Puerto Rico, have introduced voucher initiatives, Ms. Porter noted the issue is not dead despite first round rejections. Schools in which choice has been implemented have experienced higher attendance, higher parental involvement, and lower drop out rates. When people exercise choice, it is likely they will feel more a part of the school community. Ms. Sharron Angle, Nye County School Board, spoke representing herself and her constituents in Nye County, and not her school board. Speaking in favor of A.B. 340, Ms. Angle referred to the bill as a basic step for freedom. The basic issue is the freedom to choose the best education for each child. She believes flaws exist in the bill. Ms. Angle suggested the voucher go with the child rather than to a school. The bill is exclusionary of many private religious schools and Ms. Angle believed that to be an un-American concept, and the tenant of the separation of church and state is an unconstitutional doctrine. She referred to it as a politically correct bias wrapped in appealing language. It frees private schools from the restrictions of government but does not afford the same freedom to the public schools. Ms. Porter suggested the public sector be released from some of the same restrictions which hamper local school boards in their attempts to correct systemic problems. Ms. Dianne McCoy, Douglas County School Board Trustee, expressed her opposition to A.B. 340. Ms. Cherie Johnson, Douglas County School Board Trustee, stated strong opposition to A.B. 340. Ms. Pendry Clark, Superintendent, Douglas County School District, told of experiences in employment in two school districts previously which implemented magnet schools and choice systems by providing specialty schools. This was choice within the public school system for parents. She expressed strong support for parent choice believing the public school system has the ability to provide choice and specialty curriculums. Nevada has excellent examples of magnet schools which are working. Specialty curriculums and magnet school programs are more expensive, however. Ms. Clark asked for the support, confidence and adequate funding to get the job done. Ms. Janine Hansen, Nevada Eagle Forum, spoke in favor of A.B. 340. Ms. Hansen distributed a handout to the committee regarding choice education and school vouchers (Exhibit I). She declared America to be a land of choices except in public education. It is time parents have the freedom to choose the kind of education best for their own children. Ms. Hansen referred to Politics, Markets, and America's Schools by John E. Chubb and Terry M. Moe which was sponsored by the Brookings Institute in her testimony. The institute studied 20,000 students in 500 schools concluding "how can government work so hard to improve schools yet make so little progress". In the book the authors state government has not solved the education problem because government is the problem. Schools are burdened with excessive bureaucracy, are inhibited from effective organization, and student achievement is stifled. The nation's educational problem is an institutional problem. A shift away from schools controlled by government through politics and bureaucracy is proposed by the authors to a system of indirect control relying on markets and parental choice. Noting the GI bill was created by President Roosevelt for use by veterans at any college of their choice, it offered opportunity for Americans who would not have had the choice otherwise. The best system of colleges and universities in the world was created. The chance to do the same exists again to help children and families in elementary and secondary schools. Dollars spent at schools of parents' choice will become the muscle needed to create the best schools for students, particularly for poor families. Ms. Hansen suggested instead of giving the money to private schools to give it as a scholarship to the individual students, giving less than the bill calls for. The scholarship could be taken to the school of the family's choice. Mr. Ike Yochum, Independent American Party, spoke in support of the concept of A.B. 340. The bill is a step in the right direction, with a lot more to be done. Commenting on earlier testimony, Mr. Yochum spoke to why government schools fail stating they do so because they are government schools. Government destroys anything government touches. Karen Scott and Analee Anderson requested to go on record in opposition to A.B. 340. Mr. Henry Etchemendy, Executive Director, Nevada Association of School Boards, spoke against A.B. 340 from prepared remarks (Exhibit J). Mr. Etchemendy highlighted some of the points contained in the document. The uncontrovertible fact is public educational funding dedicated to K-12 education in the public schools to subsidize private enterprise. Citizens pay taxes to fund public education and not to invest in private school enterprise. Those who wish to enroll in private school can do so freely and pay tuition. Mr. Etchemendy referred to the legislative declarations contained in the bill and questioned the availability of research to back up the claims made therein. The representation of the National School Boards Association (NSBA) was discussed. The NSBA policy opposes diversion of public education funds to private schools in any form. Discussing the ten percent funding remaining with the school district after distribution of funds to private schools, Mr. Etchemendy discussed special education funding. Federal and state government mandates special education but they do not fund it. It is underfunded $42,000,000 statewide. It costs $8,200 per pupil on a statewide average to educate a special education student. All the money would go but the special education teacher, the administrators and all other overhead remains for the district. The only thing leaving is the money. This exists with non special education students as well so the district is still faced with its financial obligation. Mr. Etchemendy urged the committee to read the document distributed and to oppose A.B. 340. Ms. Dede Goodnight, President, Nevada Association of School Boards, spoke in opposition to the bill. Members of the school board association were in the audience from across the state, and stood to be recognized as members of the school board in support of public association. Ms. Goodnight explained the association has not taken an official position because of the bill's recent appearance. As an individual school board member and as a parent of public school children, Ms. Goodnight asked that public support not be taken away from schools. Ms. Goodnight asked what would happen to private schools dependent on state aid. Historically private schools have existed in a sheltered niche serving a special, hand-picked clientele. Private schools are a viable alternative for those who wish to instill specific religious values, reflect certain economic class values, or convey values of special interest. As public funds are shifted to private schools, public regulation will be escalated. Why would state laws and regulations be considered in the best interest for one group of students and not for another. Over time private schools will be subject to public scrutiny in mandates, and private schools will become another form of public schools. Meanwhile money will be taken away from neighborhood schools to pay for private vouchers. Public schools have long been the cornerstone of a strong and free nation, unifying Americans. Providing funds to fragment students and splinter them into divergent streams based on competition, special interests and class values is inappropriate. The idea of admission criteria indicate some students will be accepted and some rejected. Concerns were raised on criteria considerations. Ms. Goodnight believed the same goals were shared which are meeting the needs of the individual students, prepare accomplished high school graduates ready for work and college, strong parental involvement and improved educational opportunities. Teachers, parents, administrators, and business people are all working hard to meet these goals. Using public funds for private vouchers is a quick fix solution to a complex problem. Mr. Goodnight recommended involving communities in decision making, maintaining high expectations and accountability. Ms. Joan LeSage, Principal, Educare School, Carson City, Nevada spoke in favor of A.B. 340, after distributing a handout to the committee (Exhibit K). She stated she felt the bill could be a step forward to creating more cooperation between administrators and teachers in the public and private school sectors who are motivated to provide a quality, equitable education to all Nevada students. The bill could also implement the rightful parental status as primary educators of their children with an ethical and civic responsibility to support quality education for their children. Ms. LeSage complimented the summary of the bill. She stated she supports the overall concept of the bill. To realize the intent of the bill she indicated additions, subtractions and clarifications on the handout. Urging the committee to consider her ideas, Ms. LeSage suggested rewording of the bill so alternative education could compliment and cooperate with public education and still offer alternative choices and parental involvement. Doing so would allow the state of Nevada to set a standard which would "shine across our nation" as an example of teaching and learning environments putting children first, reduce teacher stress and provide a cost effective system of education. Ms. LeSage suggested meeting with interested parents, teachers and administrators from private and public sectors for further study on A.B. 340. Ms. Kristine Jensen, Nevada Concerned Citizens, spoke in support of parental rights in education and of A.B. 340. A choice in education is a strong cry of a need not being addressed with Nevada's children and parents. She noted a problem exists in public education. Further frustration is created when the system maintains a monopoly. Helplessness exists on the part of concerned parents. The parents, not the schools, are being mandated in every aspect of what the children shall and shall not be taught as well as how, where, and when the children shall attend. Noting she served on Strategy 2000 and other subcommittees in Clark County, Ms. Jensen explained her frustration with attempting to improve the system and not achieving any success. She encouraged attempting new ideas to help solve the problems. Ms. Jensen asked the committee to respond to the needs of the consumers. Mr. Dave Cook, Carson City School Board, wished to go on record in opposition to the bill. Ms. Ellie West, counselor, Carson City School District, wished to go on record in opposition to the bill. Ms. Carol Cronenberger expressed her opposition to the bill. Ms. Bonnie Parnell, parent, teacher, past president Nevada PTA, expressed vehement opposition to A.B. 340, concurring with the comments of the state PTA, NSEA, school boards association and school administrators. Ms. Donna Works, special education teacher, Carson City School District, supported the views of PTA, NSEA, and the Ormsby County Teacher's Association in opposition to the bill. Ms. Vicki Peterson, Nevada Concerned Citizens, parent, PTA member, spoke in favor of A.B. 340 because of the choice offered to have a say in the academics of her children. Ms. Peterson described her family, stating parents know their children best. Ms. Linda Hayes, Nevada Concerned Citizens, parent, PTA member, and teacher testified in favor of A.B. 340. She stated PTA does not represent all parents and children. Noting parents have the right to direct their child's education, Ms. Hayes expressed her support for any bill giving parents more rights and options. She related experiences as a special education teacher in Clark County. Often hearing from staff that parents do not care and do not want to get involved, Ms. Hayes found, in her experience, quite the opposite. She pointed out parents do the best they can in the situations they are given. Often there were no motivations or high expectations for at risk students. The students can achieve and perform when expected to. Ms. Hayes stated her children were constantly indoctrinated with social issues and programs taking time away from academics and are not challenged academically in the Clark County School District. Questioning by parents of curriculum and policy has been frustrating with the admonition of "leave it to the experts". Ms. Hayes explained parents are also experts and know how their children learn and what is important for the child. She requested free enterprise in education and to let the results speak for themselves. Ms. Carrie Bensen, Las Vegas, spoke in favor of A.B. 340, noting she has taken her children out of the public school system because too much time was being spent on extracurricular activities and not on basic academics. Expressing her support for having the right to choose what is best for her children, Ms. Bensen urged the committee to consider the bill. Mr. Dave Hampton, teacher, Carson City School District spoke to the committee about his son who went through the Carson City School District. He is now a presidential scholar at the University Nevada-Reno and was a high school liaison to the Carson City School Board. His words to his father were "get real, dad. Who wants to go into the so called educational marketplace if they can choose the real marketplace." Mr. Hampton's son talked to other students interested in education who indicated a private school might be good for a couple of years, but as a career, it would not pay. Mr. Hampton suggested, from the insight of his son, to look to the future and ask who will choose teaching as a career if it is turned into a marketplace. Mr. Hampton indicated he gave up private business for teaching because he believed in teaching. For many, choosing teaching as a career may happen because of the inability to earn a living by the marketplace idea driving salaries down. Mr. Hampton views this as a possibility with A.B. 340. Assemblyman Douglas Bache, Assembly District 11, spoke in opposition to A.B. 340. Mr. Bache explained he is a teacher in the Clark County School District. Indicating he feels choice already exists in education, Mr. Bache explained students can attend schools of their choice due to zone variances, and if the parents wish to pay, the choice can be made to attend private schools. Choice is not the issue. The issue is money. Vouchers would "rape" the public schools of their finances. In Section 6, dealing with special education and at risk students this is especially so. Currently if a student in a private school requires special education services, the local school district tests and provides those services for whatever amount of time is required by the student's needs. What would exist in Section 6 of A.B. 340 is increased funding to the private schools, yet the public school would still have to provide the services. This would also apply to other programs such as Chapter 1 and other federal programs. Assemblyman David Goldwater, Assembly District 10, spoke in opposition to A.B. 340. He stated he felt it takes away from the few democratic inroads made into quality education in the United States. It removes accountability and responsibility to failure. Noting he has two at-risk schools in his district and only a few private institutions, Mr. Goldwater imagined the large number of at-risk students applying to the private institutions. The majority of the at risk-students would be turned away and this is unfair treatment. The recognition of significant steps taken in public education in equality is important. Minority, disadvantaged students will not be served by A.B. 340. Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, Assembly District 9, disclosed she is a public school teacher for the Clark County School District and is on an unpaid leave of absence from that district. She testified in opposition to A.B. 340. She commended the ideas which need to be shared in the arena of public education. Her opposition comes from the underlying principle of what the United States was founded on, that being a free, public education for all children regardless of their capabilities. Ms. Giunchigliani stated she felt the public schools do far better than the credit they are given. Differences and problems do exist. Raiding funding which is minuscule at best from public schools and diverting it to private or parochial schools will not serve any population. As the product of a private, parochial elementary school and public high school, Ms. Giunchigliani explained her family chose because they believed in the public institution. The opportunities are out there. Ms. Giunchigliani asked the committee not to undermine public education and be supportive of what allows for a democratic society to continue. Additional written testimony was submitted for the record by interested parties who were unable to stay for the whole hearing. The testimony of Mrs. Grace Wintle is (Exhibit L) and the testimony of Mr. Brendan Trainor, along with a cassette tape by John Taylor Gatto is (Exhibit M). The chair was returned to Chairman Harrington. Chairman Harrington announced more hearings would be held on A.B. 340 both in Carson City and Las Vegas for the expression of viewpoints of interested parties. The bill will be discussed at a work session by the committee in the future. The hearing was closed on A.B. 340. The meeting was adjourned at 5:35 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Barbara Prudic, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Assemblyman William Z. Harrington, Chairman Assemblyman Wendell P. Williams, Chairman Assembly Committee on Education March 22, 1995 Page